The sin of pride

A nun makes a choice--about somebody's else's Order of Canada medal.

In the same spirit, I hereby freely renounce former Canadian citizen Conrad Black's Order of Canada, and would swiftly return his medal to Rideau Hall were it to come into my possession. And the old robber-baron isn't even dead yet. I'm not certain, however, that I would do more than post a short entry here about it. I enjoy the odd bout of self-righteousness, as some of my more ardent critics (and, privately, even some of my friends) might be quick to agree. But there are limits. No press conference, no op-ed piece. The gesture itself tells, I would think, the entire story.

Those who have read Murder in the Cathedral might already know where I'm going with this. Archbishop Thomas Becket is facing imminent martyrdom. The most difficult question with which he must wrestle is whether pride, rather than devotion to God, is motivating his decision to remain in Canterbury to be killed. Does the Archbishop covet his martyrdom, and the ensuing devotion that will be paid him?

Sister Suzanne Stubbs, it seems to me, has not grappled sufficiently with this question. She might, after all, simply have returned the medal, even if it wasn't hers. But she chose, instead, to accompany this dubious act of sacrifice with an article in the National Post and a press conference at Michaëlle Jean's place.

The article fairly reeks of prissy self-satisfaction. And, of course, not only are we called upon to admire the Sister's spotless conscience, we must also hold in high regard the sheer courage it took:

We knew we were taking a risk. We could expect some nasty feedback from friends and strangers. We certainly would be labelled in some way: right, left, pro, anti. We might be made to look foolish. I might even feel foolish at some point. Still, I made a choice to go to Ottawa.

To a gathering of media, the Sister claims, "We had no agenda except to perform a symbolic gesture. That is, we made a statement about what we believe to be true." In the full glare, of course, of as much publicity as she and her fellows could drum up in order to put their virtue on public display.

And how she drones on:

In my work at a Catholic organization, I try to help people know that they matter, too. It is a blessed work, and it gives me peace. In the work of our group, we spend time listening to people. We try to pay attention to them and be concerned for their concerns. We try not to give handouts in our charity work without befriending the person in need.

Yes, she feels their pain:

In my personal work, I've listened to the anguish of women who have suffered abortions. I have listened to the questions of the young who want to inform their consciences about abortion. In some cases, our friends are helped to consider and choose other options than destroying life. I guess my heart has taken in a lot of the pain of the others.

Now the point is not that she isn't sincere about all this. I have no reason to suppose that Sister Stubbs is a hypocrite. But there is something mildly disturbing about the apparent hunger for publicity that accompanied her grand gesture of renunciation. Was her trip to Ottawa simply an opportunity to bear witness against the award of the Order of Canada to a person anathematized by her Church? Or was it, as Catholics might put it, an "occasion for sin"--in this case the cardinal sin of hubris?

(Crossposted from Dawg's Blawg.)

The truth about global warming

H/t commenter Kobra, at Pharyngula

(Crossposted from Dawg's Blawg.)

Nothing hides incompetency like a war

There are a few people who use it with skill while others fumble about trying to locate the formula used by so-called Great Leaders in history.

George W. Bush, essentially a useful idiot for a much larger force, continually tried to shift the focus of Americans from his repeated acts of incompetency by deflecting their gaze in the general direction of war. He declared himself a "war president", even after he told Americans the best thing they could do was to "go shopping".

Surprisingly, the current US antagonist isn't in much better shape. In fact he could be worse. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, has made an incredible mess of the place and despite public sabre-rattling, may be more unpopular with his electorate than Bush is with his.

Thomas P.M. Barnett illuminates the conditions which make war for two people in particular very appealing.

One is US presidential hopeful John McCain who, without an elevated level of fear among Americans, doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning.

The other is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who, without a war with the US or Israel, is almost certainly going to find himself on the unemployment roles and trying to survive in an economy which he is personally responsible for wrecking.

Looming behind the most crucial dynamics is the possible presidency of Barack Obama, suggesting that war may become inevitable due to the fear of peace. [...]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's presidency has been a disaster for the Iranian people. Despite all the oil wealth, inflation is raging and the economy goes nowhere. Add in a stunning birth dearth, the world's worst brain drain, plus Iranian prostitutes headlining European brothels, and this is clearly a society in a death spiral. With restless students chanting in public for Ahmadinejad's death, little wonder the man pines for a splendid little war.

Ahmadinejad's one popular success has been to champion Iran's brazen reach for nuclear capacity, an effort cleverly designed to emphasize the strategic dangers of attempted regime change by outsiders. [...] But Ahmadinejad's time grows short. A bevy of candidates seeks to oust him next year, and his opponents now head the parliament, the crucial Assembly of Experts and Tehran's city hall. With Obama currently leading decisively polls for the U.S. presidency, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, faces the prospect of losing his most useful -- for internal politics, that is -- external enemy, reducing Ahmadinejad's utility as frontman.

You really do need to read the whole column. For even more though, Barnett provide even more clarification on his blog.

That too, is something you need to read.

Problem right now is how many sides would welcome war. "U.S. Plays Down Military Showdown" is a couple of quotes from Gates and an Undersecretary of State, meaning two counties heard from but hardly the "U.S." that matters right now on this subject (Bush-Cheney). Both, in my mind, have no problem with an Israeli strike on their watch that could easily suck us into combat. Time is short.

Of course, you'll want a bottle of something after all of that. 151 over-proof should work for a short time.

Cross posted from The Galloping Beaver

Always wanted a pony? General Natynczyk will give you a pony.

The Harper government and the senior leadership of the Canadian Forces have been roundly criticized in the past for failing to communicate the truth about conditions in Afghanistan. Boris pointed out that when the senior leadership of government downplay the indicators which suggest that serious problems exist, it is intellectual dishonesty and done with a clear intent to hide the truth from the public.

There was some speculation that, as Rick Hillier stepped down and General Walter Natynczyk took over as Chief of Defence Staff, that there might be a chance to provide unsanitized information surrounding the Afghanistan mission. Well, the speculation is over and it looks like the same Harper standard is to be maintained as General Natynczyk took the opportunity to blow sunshine up everybody's ass in the face of data which makes his statement worth nothing. (Emphasis mine)

The new head of Canada's military has completed a five-day visit to Afghanistan and offered a uniquely cheerful assessment of the security situation that contrasts sharply with the grim data.

The upbeat prognosis from Canada's new chief of defence staff that the violence is holding steady in Kandahar province this year flies in the face of independent analysis documenting a 77 per cent surge in Taliban attacks.

That increased violence was underscored Sunday in a pair of devastating insurgent strikes.

Nine U.S. soldiers were reported killed as militants launched a fiery assault on a remote outpost, and 24 Afghans died in a separate suicide blast on a police checkpoint in the province next to Kandahar.

The comparatively sunny estimation from Gen. Walter Natynczyk after his tour of Afghanistan was also at odds with the increasingly bleak portrait being painted by Canada's allies.

The Pentagon has cited a 40 per cent increase in insurgent attacks in eastern areas of Afghanistan where U.S. forces operate, and notes that it is now losing more soldiers here than in Iraq.

Anyone else want to weigh in?

Britain's defence secretary calls Afghanistan a generational struggle that will require a foreign troop presence for many years.

Local businesspeople say they're increasingly discouraged about the security situation in their city, and fear that economic gains made after 2001 are being wiped away.

As Ottawa continues to be a font of "good news" Afghanistan is spinning into oblivion. Natynczyk has plenty of experience in Afghanistan so he would be fully aware of how things are actually going. That makes this even more curious.

"We're generally along the same lines as we have been the past few years," Natynczyk told a news conference at Kandahar Airfield.

"Looking at the statistics, we're just a slight notch - indeed an insignificant notch - above where we were last year."

Yeah?! I wonder if Natynczyk was in the right country because everyone else in Afghanistan is seeing something completely different.

According to a prominent security firm that compiles insurgent incidents reported by NATO and local security forces, that insignificant notch is actually a 77 per cent increase in attacks from 2007.

Statistician Sami Kovanen at Vigilant Strategic Services Afghanistan says the number of assassinations, bombings, kidnappings, suicide strikes, mine explosions, and mortar assaults by pro-Taliban insurgents through July 6 was 532 incidents this year, compared to only 300 last year.

That coincides with what the United Nations is reporting.

So what do Canadian defence officials have to say when they are shown the numbers? (Hang on to your ass, this gets really good.)

They note that the economy has grown since 2001, far more children are going to school, and human rights have expanded exponentially since the days of the Taliban.

But when asked about security, their optimism appears based on anecdotal evidence; some locals have tipped them off about the location of a roadside bomb, they've seen a traffic jam - a sure sign of activity in Kandahar city, a bazaar has reopened and there are new businesses.

Rrrriiiight! A bazaar opens and a traffic jam happens therefore the economy is expanding. And as for talking to the locals, perhaps those Canadian defence officials should have done a little more of that to see how their observations stacked up.

A well-known Kandahar businessman offers some anecdotal evidence of his own.

"I don't see businesses opening," says the restaurateur, shaking his head when asked if things are getting better in the city.

"All I see are businesses closing."

And as for the exponential increase in human rights, Canadian defence officials and the new Chief of Defence Staff should talk to a few of the organizations that have compiled statistics which tell a completely different story.

From Womankind Worldwide:

Seven years after the US and the UK ‘freed’ Afghan women from the oppressive Taliban regime, our report proves that life is just as bad for most, and worse in some cases. Maternal mortality rates ? one in six women dies in childbirth ? are the highest in the world alongside Sierra Leone. Afghanistan is the only country in the world with a higher suicide rate among women than men.

You can read the juicy details in this (pdf) report. Terri Judd of the Independent read it and reported under the title Women's lives are worse than ever:

The statistics in the report from Womankind, Afghan Women and Girls Seven Years On, make shocking reading. Violent attacks against females, usually domestic, are at epidemic proportions with 87 per cent of females complaining of such abuse – half of it sexual. More than 60 per cent of marriages are forced.

A more recent report from the New England Journal of Medicine this past May paints the same picture: An increase in self-immolation among women because nothing in their lives is improving.

Then this from Canada's new CDS:

The defence chief says he's encouraged that the Taliban no longer even bother trying to muster up forces for conventional battlefield fights because they are crushed every time.

"They are not 10 feet tall," Natynczyk said of the enemy.

"They know that if they take us on directly, they'll either lose or they'll have to flee."

Now there's a dangerous metric. One would expect a full general to be a little more careful tossing that kind of statement around.

The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese never won one major engagement in head-to-head combat with US forces. Not one. Shall we discuss the results?

Mushrooms. Natynczyk is feeding the mushrooms.

Cross posted from The Galloping Beaver

The black hole

First the video (h/t, and a further h/t for stimulating this post):



My initial reaction was the same as that of my friend Red Tory. At the very margins of political correctness. Beyond silly. A black hole is so named because its gravity is so intense that no light can escape from it. You can't go around calling it a "white hole" or a "pink hole."

But the man in the video actually raises an interesting point. With the exception of "in the black," popular usages of the word tend to connote something negative. "Black arts," "black hearts," "black look," "black book," "blackout," "black sheep," "blackguard," etc., etc.

No wonder the Irish refer in their language to "blue people" rather than "black people." ("An fear dubh" means "the Devil," literally, "the black man." Hence, out of respect, "an fear gorm" is used for Blacks.)

It's no coincidence that colonialists called Kipling's "lesser breeds without the Law" "black." It accorded with the connotations the word already had. Ditto "white." When did we start calling ourselves "white," anyway? Quite late during the Age of Discovery, as it happens (scroll down to n.35 in the link). Why is someone half-white and half-black "black? instead of "white?" Because the notion of blackness has been made equivalent to sin: maculate vs. immaculate, the staining of purity. "Whiteness," of course, is an ever-shifting category.

The connotations of both "white" and "black" are far too deeply embedded, in any case, to be overcome simply by watching one's words. But there is a solution.

I've never seen a black person, just people in various delightful hues ranging from ebony (actually a very dark brown) to light tan. Instead of internalizing centuries of white racism, perhaps Blacks (who adopted that nomenclature in the 'sixties as a form of political defiance, much as the word "queer" was reclaimed by gays) might want to consider referring to themselves as brown, or umber, or bronze. And we non-Blacks should follow suit, of course. Speaking as a pinkish kind of person, it seems to me that this would be a far less arduous cultural hill to climb.

Any takers?

(Crossposted from Dawg's Blawg.)

Oggi in Italia: il risorgimento Fascista

Is anyone paying attention to the rapid lurch of Italy into full-blown Fascism these days?

The extreme-right government of Silvio Berlusconi is now in its second incarnation. It's been in the news recently for rounding up Roma ("Gypsies") for fingerprinting, and threatening to take away their children. Berlusconi himself has hijacked the political process by just passing a law to exempt himself from on-going prosecution on charges of corruption.

Fascism has once again gained a stronghold in Italy. The new mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, a former member of a neo-Fascist youth group, Fronte della Gioventù, (associated with the Fascist political party Movimento Sociale Italiano) was elected a few short weeks ago, to rousing chants of "Duce! Duce!" from his squadristi. Berlusconi welcomed his election, proclaiming, "We are the new Falange."

Meanwhile Berlusconi's Northern League henchman, Umberto Bossi, has already proclaimed, "Non so cosa vuole la sinistra, noi siamo pronti, se vogliono fare gli scontri io ho trecentomila uomini sempre a disposizione." ("I don't know what the Left wants, but if they want to take us on, I've got 300,000 men at my disposal.") And then, getting straight to the point, "I fucili sono sempre caldi." ("Our rifles are always hot.")

A beady gaze had already been cast upon homosexuals under this Mussolini nuovo. Did you know that gays can't drive? Somehow that was never part of the stereotype for me, but a gay man in Italy was forced to re-take his driver's test and then was issued with only a one-year permit, because of his "sexual identity disturbance" ("disturbo del comportamento sessuale"). Both the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Transport were involved. A court in Sicily (the courts have not as yet been purged) has just awarded him €100,000 (about $157,000) in damages.

The European Union passed a strongly-worded resolution with respect to the rounding-up of Roma, but I for one have had my bellyful of strongly-worded resolutions. What about regime change right here at home? While the eyes of the world are focussed upon Robert Mugabe, a European nation is returning to its Fascist glory days.

And needless to say, our "conservatives" love him. More ideological slippage? Or is Fascism, as I've said before, just conservatism with the gloves off?

Photos from Scotland

There is a bagpiper just outside the hotel who plays from 9 am til night -- it's actually OK now, we're used to it, but that first morning...
Anyway, Edinburgh is a beautiful city and we've enjoyed being here for a few days. Here are some photos:

On the train journey north, we stopped right beside the Queen's train. Apparently she was visiting some military barracks or something.


A view across the city to the firth, from the courtyard of Edinburgh Castle.


The dog's cemetery at the Castle.


Greyfriar's Bobby.


The statues are all very dignified -- except that just about every one we saw had a seagull perched on the head. If there is one sound I will remember from Edinburgh, besides bagpipes, it is the cry of the seagulls.


And it isn't all old and stuffy -- we thought this banana motif at an insurance office was hilarious.

For my earlier posts, see Photos from England 1, Photos from England 2 and Photos from England 3
Home tomorrow!

A nation of sheep

Not long ago I posted a few examples of Canadians' sleepwalking deference to authority. Today's news brings more glaring instances.

In Edmonton, two thuggish cops, both high-ranking, were given wrist-slaps by yet another complaisant judge. These uniformed hoods unlawfully entered a man's house without a warrant, refused to leave, and then broke one of his ribs and doused him with pepper-spray. They walked out of court with six-month conditional discharges (which become absolute discharges at the end of that period), and sixty hours of community service.

The article just linked to reveals a social pathology that should worry anyone genuinely concerned about civil liberties. Defence lawyers wittered on about "impressive community and professional contributions." One of the thugs, we are told, lost 30 pounds and suffered several sleepless nights due to the stress of the trial and attendant publicity.


When the journalist finally moves on, having established to her satisfaction that these suffering boyz in blue were fine upstanding citizens, she get to the nub of the thing:

Ewatski entered the home to speak to him and Dubois shoved him. Ewatski responded by delivering a head-stun. He pushed Dubois to the floor and pepper-sprayed him. Fiorilli pulled back on Dubois's thumb to cause pain.

Almost needless to say, Dubois was charged with assaulting a police officer. The Crown wisely stayed that bogus charge.

And, after all this, as was the case with the cops who killed Robert Dziekanski, it's back to business as usual:

"Chief Mike Boyd has confirmed that there will be no immediate change to the work assignment or status of the officers pending conclusion of the internal investigation," police spokeswoman Dajana Fabjanovich said in a news release.

Does anyone remember the case of Said Jama Jama, a Somalian immigrant badly beaten by a thug named Roy Preston, charged with assault on a police officer, and threatened with deportation? After the whole thing turned out to have been caught on videotape, the judicial system simply threw the book at the officer. He was sentenced to thirty days, to be served on weekends.

It doesn't end there. This was in 2005. The cop actually appealed this little slap on the hand, but in November 2007, his appeal was dismissed. He appeal again, and only this month was a further appeal dismissed. For most of this time he had remained on full pay by special order of Toronto police chief Bill Blair, who had the discretion, under Ontario's Police Services Act, to suspend Preston without pay after his initial conviction. The Ontario Court of Appeal noted, with breathtaking understatement, that his sentence was "if anything, on the lenient side," and rejected a bizarre argument from Preston's lawyer that he shouldn't be imprisoned because it could affect his career as a police officer.

After two appeals, a sentence of thirty days, to be served on weekends. For assault and battery, attempt to frame his victim, and fabrication of evidence, by a person whose sworn duty it was to uphold the law.

And there are people who think that the greatest threat to our freedoms comes from Human Rights Commissions?

*************

Meanwhile, on the international front, our troops in Afghanistan are set to be issued with so-called "laser dazzlers." These, despite the harmless-sounding name, can be used to blind enemy troops, contrary to a Geneva Convention ban on the use of laser weapons. A spokesman for a company that makes these things admits that they aren't "eye-safe," but offers the following reassurances: "As long as they're employed as they ought to be employed, within the safe operating distance, they will not cause any eye damage."

Well, that's OK, then. After all, our military calls them "warning devices." And the kindly Blackwater folks are using them in Iraq.

Back to sleep, my fellow Canadians. Never mind that "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" stuff. That's for dead Romans and weak-kneed leftist bleeding hearts. Those folks in uniform are our friends, upholding law and liberty here and over there.

Move along. There's nothing to see here. I told you to move along. Do I really have to use this thing?

UPDATE: It occurs to me that this excellent piece by Boris over at Galloping Beaver might have inspired this post. H/t, to be on the safe side. : )


(Crossposted from Dawg's Blawg)

More on leadership

Some time ago I wrote a rather lengthy and perhaps tedious piece on leadership. Joseph Nye, in today's Globe and Mail, makes my main point rather more succinctly here.

I'm still wrestling with the Stéphane Dion conundrum. I've defended him (sort of) here. But I'm at war with myself. I may have to re-think my position about leadership, prompted in part by the gut-feeling I have every time I see a picture of that man, or listen to him speak.

It's not the craven Liberal capitulation in Parliament over the past several months. That's not just Dion, it's his caucus and the Liberal Party in general. We tend to over-personalize the misbehaviour of an entire group in one individual. (In the case of Harper, that's not entirely wrong-headed. He micromanages to the point of autocracy. But he's an exception to the general rule.) But is that over-personalization avoidable, even with a radically different notion of leadership?

I think not. Because, while the "big man" warrior-leader decried by Nye is long overdue for a replacement, a leader must, just for the sake of efficiency, be the human face of his or her group. It's a question of communication. We need to see in that person, not super-human qualities, but sincerity. When the leader speaks, we need to be able to connect, to grab what he or she is saying at a visceral level as well as an intellectual one.

Now, check out that picture, above. This is Dion, in Alberta, addressing a gathering of an endangered species known as the Alberta Young Liberals. Never has Stetson sat upon a more unwilling head. And the shirt.... Look how uncomfortable and self-conscious he looks.

I know, some readers will immediately be remembering this:













and this:













Is there a difference, then? I would say yes. The too-tight leather vest has become almost an icon. But I do like Harper's expression in the photograph. This is beyond self-consciousness. He looks irritated, as though he'll have a word with his stylist after the shoot. The second photo, of Harper wearing an ao dai, the national dress of his Vietnamese hosts at the time, captures one of the exceedingly rare occasions in which Harper is utterly disarming. He's so obviously in costume, and just as obviously, he's so aware of how un-Harperish he looks, that he's actually smiling.

Harper was born in a pinstripe and he'll be buried in one. We know that, and so does he. He can survive these moments precisely because he's so unsuccessful at trying to be what he's not. Like him or dislike him, for better or for worse, Harper is always himself. (There are other non-political reasons why he's a very bad leader indeed, but later for that.)

On the other hand, Dion always looks uncomfortable, as though he's playing a role that he hasn't mastered. He's reminds me of the overly self-conscious Sartrean waiter in a cafe:

Let us consider this waiter in the cafe. His movement is quick and forward, a little too precise, a little too rapid. He comes toward the patrons with a step a little too quick. He bends forward a little too eagerly; his voice, his eyes express an interest a little too solicitous for the order of the customer. Finally there he returns, trying to imitate in his walk the inflexible stiffness of some kind of automaton while carrying his tray with a recklessness of a tight-rope walker by putting it in a perpetually unstable, perpetually broken equilibrium which he perpetually re-establishes by a light movement of the arm and hand.

He applies himself to chaining his movements as if they were mechanisms, the one regulating the other; his gestures and even his voice seem to be mechanisms; he gives himself the quickness and pitiless rapidity of things. He is playing, he is amusing himself. But what is he playing? We need not watch long before we can explain it: he is playing at being a waiter in a cafe.

It's not that the Stetson and the shirt don't become him. It's that we have no clear idea of what would.

And the same goes for his words. I'm not referring here to his incomplete grasp of English. (I wish my French were as good as his second language; when I once upon a time did have to deliver speeches in French, I invariably needed a script.) I'm talking, once again, about his tone, his delivery, his sincerity.

We don't expect Harper to be spontaneous. That would be most un-Harperesque. Indeed, lack of sponaneity is part of Harper's tightly-wound personality. He's comfortable with that, or appears to be, which is what matters. But Dion's lack of spontaneity is matched by what invariably appears to be discomfort. Certainly some of that is his difficulty with English. But even in French--well, judge for yourself. Every time the party faithful dutifully applaud, he looks like the professor he is, waiting for the classroom disturbance to end. He even gulps noticeably at one point.

Neither leader connects with his audience in the visceral sense. But Harper at least appears to mean what he says. We listen for precisely that reason. Many of us don't like him, or even actively despise him, but he delivers the message, with confidence and sincerity. And that makes us take the message itself seriously. He doesn't get in the way, one might say. But Dion, on the other hand, nervously delivers Liberal talking-points. We are distracted, to some degree. There's something too-obviously rote about his performances, and he has what appears to be a permanent case of mild stage fright. He reminds me of a kid shakily reciting poetry from the stage on assembly day at a primary school. (Hey, that was me!)

We don't need warrior leaders, "big men," autocrats at a non-existent helm. There is no "ship of state." We need to ditch metaphors like that, recognizing that leadership, paradoxically, is a collective phenomenon, and we need to design new paradigms of leadership more in keeping with the demands of a complex state apparatus, not to mention a society. The old images of leadership are obstacles to be overcome.

But all that being said, the public face of a leader is an essential aspect of the role. He or she needs not only to utter, but to be heard. A leader's apparent belief in his or her own words, a leader's evident confidence, a leader's ability to convey the living ideological to head and heart, is an essential part of the transmittal process. Harper doesn't shine in the latter respect. His public leadership is badly flawed. But regrettably Stéphane Dion, at least in this respect, is not a leader at all.

(Crossposted from Dawg's Blawg)

UPDATE: (July 12) There's a post up at CC's place that reinforces my point, albeit tangentially. What kind of leader feels constrained to boast about his academic credentials?

Taking abortions to the virtual back alley

When Britain passed its more liberalized abortion law in 1967 Northern Ireland was left out of the legislation. Presumably that was to satisfy the predominant Roman Catholic population. That left Northern Ireland with a different statute based on Catholic church standards.

Britain's abortion statute is nothing to rave about. On the face it appears fairly restrictive, although it is sufficiently vague to allow women and their physicians to proceed with a woman's request without being impaired by legal interference.

That leaves Northern Ireland, and many other jurisdictions around the world where abortion services are difficult to acquire or simply do not exist. That traditionally drives abortions into the back alleys.

Now, however, the back alley is a website away.

Some women in countries where abortion is restricted are using the internet to buy medication enabling them to abort a pregnancy at home, the BBC has learned.

Women in Northern Ireland and over 70 countries with restrictions have used one of the main websites, Women on Web.

A British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology review of 400 customers found nearly 11% had needed a surgical procedure after taking the medication.

The website says it can help reduce the problems linked with unsafe abortions.

The Family Planning Association of Northern Ireland describes Women On Web as a reputable site which provides information and medication (Mifepristone or Misoprostal) to women for a non-surgical abortion where the pregnancy is less than 9 weeks along.

Women on Web posts the drugs only to countries where abortion is heavily restricted, and to women who declare they are less than nine weeks' pregnant.

The service is essentially free, although a donation of 70 Euros is requested. Interestingly, if a woman cannot afford to make a donation, the group has the means to acquire one for her using their donation account, Women's Wallet. This particular site appears to have some affiliation with Women on Waves, a Netherlands-based organization which uses a ship to sail to various countries, where abortion is illegal, providing safe, professional early-term abortions.

Audrey Simpson of the Northern Ireland FPA:

"We're really concerned about women accessing the rogue sites - we're hearing about it and we know it's happening.

"There are potentially serious medical complications for women from sites which aren't well managed and this could be the new era of backstreet abortions."

And sure enough, if you go to Women on Waves and scroll down, there's a warning identifying at least one site which is exploiting women by sending medications without adequate consultation and without continuing assistance. And according to WOW, the pills are useless.
That creates a whole other problem. Making abortions illegal through legislation and regulation does not end abortions. It simply drives them into a world of extreme danger. While Women on Web and Women on Waves present safer options for women, the web is starting to sprout back-alley operations.

Of course the fetus fetishists have something to say.

Anti-abortion campaigners said they were appalled by such websites.

Josephine Quintavalle, from the group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: "This is very worrying indeed. It represents further trivialisation of the value of the unborn child.

"It's like taking abortion into the shadows. These drugs have side-effects and tragedies will increase."

Uh huh! There's that "unborn child" meme again. And whose program is driving abortion into the shadows lady?If a woman's right to choose is not the subject of a law, the shadows disappear.

Bizarre Globe editorial of the month

Shorter Globe and Mail:

Bringing Omar Khadr back to Canada for trial is "unrealistic."

Better he should cop a plea at Gitmo and be "rehabilitated" in a Canadian jail.

Because if he were tried here, he'd get off.

Andrew Coyne fails democracy.

Andrew Coyne has come out with one of the thinnest arguments ever produced for initiating a national political debate on abortion: It's undemocratic to have a country without an abortion law.

Luckily, Dr. Dawg does a complete dissection of Coyne's strange theory and shines some light in corners young Andrew didn't quite cover.

There is something which attracted my attention, however and it is how Coyne views the current situation. That of Dr. Morgentaler being appointed to the Order of Canada.

The furor over Henry Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada, on the other hand, now that is about abortion. There may be some who object out of a disinterested concern for fairness, on the principle that an honour bestowed on behalf of all of the people of Canada should not be given to a man whose life's work is, still, so profoundly upsetting to so many Canadians. But for most people, it's about abortion. In honouring him, we are honouring it, normalizing it, stamping it with the seal of approval.

Or rather not abortion, as such, but the legal void that surrounds it, which Morgentaler did so much to bring about: the extraordinary fact that, 20 years after the Supreme Court ruling that bears his name, this country still has no abortion law of any kind. It isn't that abortion — at any stage of a pregnancy, for any reason, and at public expense — is lawful in Canada. It is merely not unlawful. When it comes to abortion, we are literally a lawless society: the only country in the developed world that does not regulate the practice in any way.

Perhaps the members of the Order's advisory council thought the continuance of this legal void, after so many years, signalled a consensus had formed in its favour. Perhaps they thought, by naming Morgentaler, they could impress one upon the country. Either way, the decision was revealing — as was the reaction. The letters pages of the country's newspapers were filled for days with passionate denunciations. Members of Parliament spoke out against it by the dozen. Several members of the Order returned their pins.

Stop right there, Andrew, old boy.

Firstly, the furor you speak of is a very small group of very loud people. And you're quite right: among them are virulent racists, woman-haters and unrepentant bigots. The problem is that the only people we're hearing from are those people and those who are promoting their favourite religious agenda. The truth is, despite the hyperbole of newspapers filled with letters of protest and "dozens" of members of parliament making their usual flatulent noise, the majority of Canadians are not opposed to Dr. Morgentaler's appointment. Letters to the editor are not representative of public opinion when it's an organized campaign by one side.

Who has returned their decoration to Rideau Hall? A couple of people have said they are going to do it but to date, the Honours and Awards secretariat has reported that none have actually been returned. The initial "return the gong" movement started with a Catholic group announcing they were returning the Order of Canada insignia of the late Catherine de Hueck Doherty.

Guess what, Andrew. When you die, so does your Order of Canada. It doesn't get handed down. The medal itself is a legacy item - not a perpetual honour. Which puts at least one other award supposedly "returned" into the same category. And if you're at all feeling brave you can read LifeSite news (look it up yourself) where they announce that three other previous recipients of the Order of Canada are "returning" their awards but wish to remain anonymous. I'll bet they do too, because they're hoping to play into the emotions of their religious constituency, have this whole thing quickly blow over and then attend the next major cocktail party with that familiar piece of hardware hanging from their neck.

The remainder of your argument, Andrew, is specious at best. Democracy has worked this through, as Dr. Dawg has pointed out, and the result is that we need no law. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which would supersede any law which imposed the will of a minority on over one-half the population as a form of subjugation.

And that is, whether you choose to recognize it or not, what this is all about. You say the anti-abortion noise machine has been effectively silenced. What utter hogwash. They're noisier today than they ever were in the past and they continue to represent a minority of the population.

What is really interesting though, Andrew, is your take on how all this works. That somehow democracy demands that the government get to work introducing some form of legislation and then we, the unwashed masses, get to hear all sides of an argument, including the loud minority side for whom the legislation was placed in front of us in the first place.

Quaint, but wrong. That is democracy turned on its head. The politicians work for us; not the other way around.

How is it "democracy" when we only get to choose from a menu produced by a political class? Yes, I realize that is the conservative view of democracy, but most of us don't adhere to the dogma of conservative politics. That being, "I will direct you. You will comply. In return I will guarantee to protect you from (fill in the blank)." Honestly, Andrew, the cost of such a deal is just to high. And it still boils down to putting over one-half of the population of this country on trial for the freedoms they are guaranteed.

Politicians are like dogs. They constantly think of their own survival, no matter how comfortable they are. In that we elect them, they are all too aware that inflaming the people with a debate in which they do not want to engage, to satisfy a minority group whose position is borne out of some religious doctrine, would be guaranteed political suicide.

It isn't a brave politician that will start such a debate; it is a stupid one.

Democracy says the people will decide; not the politicians, the pundits or the columnists. The people have decided that there is no need for a law, either way. I know that's a hard pill for a conservative to swallow.

Try not to choke on it.

Cross posted from The Galloping Beaver

Photos from England 3

Westminster Abbey - I didn't take a particularly good photo, but this is a striking memory.


All around Leicester Square are these plaques identifying the "colonies", their capitals, and the distance ceom London. Here is ours.


And here is the Leicester Square statue of Charlie Chaplin -- it was raining too hard to get a shot of the Shakespeare statue. There are a thousand parks and squares and a thousand statues -- on the way back in the cab, we passed by the statues of Sidney Herbert and Florence Nightengale, who reformed British health care after the Crimean War, so I regret not getting the chance to photograph these ones.


On the left is Andre Philippe, our amazing "ripperologist" guide for what turned out to be an amazing "Jack the Ripper Tour" -- I thought it would be sorta silly and it turned out to be absolutely fascinating because our guide has been studying the Ripper for 20 years. He is an historian who lived in the East End so that he could track down the descendents of the Ripper's victims and develop his theory about the man who was very likely the Ripper - Andre makes a compelling case and he is writing a book about it. If any Ripper book deserves to be published, it is his.

For my earlier posts, see Photos from England 1 and Photos from England 2

Andrew Coyne's abortion mischief

Today's Maclean's cover story is a longish argument by Andrew Coyne that we should toss abortion back into the legislative arena. Why? Apparently because it's time.

There is, in fact, something quintessentially, even touchingly, Canadian about Coyne's piece. There's presently a "legal void" with respect to abortion. Despite his impeccable conservative credentials, Coyne, it seems, is hungry for regulation. "When it comes to abortion, we are literally a lawless society," he says, invoking connotations of a Western town before the sheriff rides in.

For him, it's all about process. "This is not about abortion," he begins. "It's about democracy." How did we end up with no abortion law? An accident of history! It wasn't meant to be this way. No other country has no abortion law. We've got to do something! Now!

I'm not trying to caricature Coyne's arguments with all those exclamation marks, but there does seem to be a kind of quiet panic in his words. Abortion is unfinished business. The current Order of Canada controversy proves just that. Time to put our shoulders to the wheel and put abortion back in the Criminal Code. Or, at least, settle that matter democratically.

Abortion is not currently lawful, he says, merely not illegal. In my layman's mind, I assumed that anything not forbidden was permitted. In Singapore, chewing gum is against the law. In Canada, we have no law respecting gum-chewing. Is it lawful to chew gum in Canada, or just not illegal? Enough. I have no idea what point Coyne is trying to make here, other than making an appeal for a legal regime that would hold reproductive freedom in its toils, sorting out lawful abortion from unlawful abortion. You can have an abortion You can't. It's the law.

How does he attempt to make this case? He uses two general approaches. First, as noted, he claims that there was a failure of process two decades ago. Secondly, he argues in effect that there is a split amongst Canadians that can only be healed by dragging the issue back into the legal realm.

On the alleged failure of democratic process, he takes us back to the January 1988 Supreme Court decision that struck down Canada's abortion law. Did the SCC establish a constitutional right to abortion? No. But, as Coyne concedes, "it's difficult...to say what the Court wanted with any precision." It was a 5-2 decision, with four separate judgements. Clearly, though (he insists), they expected some new Charter-compliant law would replace the restrictive Section 251 of the Criminal Code that they struck down.

The SCC might have held that door open, but, as it turned out, no one wanted to walk through it. The Mulroney government of the day first tried a "pick one" approach, putting on the floor of the House of Commons a three-part motion that offered a selection of pro-choice, "pro-life" and compromise positions. Surprise, surprise there was no majority support for any of the positions. In a classic example of strange bedfellows, in fact, pro-choice and "pro-life" MPs voted against the compromise. But neither faction had enough support to get its own way.

A few months later, the government put its compromise position before the House. It would allow early-stage abortion if a doctor agreed, but restrict access later on in the pregnancy. The proposal didn't fly. Then, the following year, a watered-down version of the previous law, C-43, was put before the House. It passed by the slimmest of margins--140-131--and went to the Senate, where it ultimately failed, on a tied vote.

Coyne finds all of this undemocratic, which I find passing strange. The issue had been hassled about in the House of Commons three times since the old law had been struck down. On the third attempt, a new measure barely passed. The Senate blocked it, a Senate that had just previously been stuffed with Conservative appointments to ensure passage of Mulroney's Free Trade Agreement. But the Senate, unelected, undemocratic, a vestige of another day and age, does not have authority over the House of Commons.

Nothing prevented the Commons from reintroducing the measure. Nothing prevented the Prime Minister from making the same observation that Coyne makes in his article; namely that the acting Speaker of the Senate, who had abstained, was entitled to vote but (Coyne says) didn't realize it. Nothing prevented lobbying behind the scenes to get support from some of the 23 Senators who didn't vote. But the Mulroney government simply saw the writing on the wall, and decided to pursue the matter no further.

That strikes me as Parliamentary democracy in action, warts and all. The government spent an enormous amount of time and energy getting the matter debated, and rising again after each failure to have another go at it. Public lobbying was at a peak. The Canadian Medical Association, various powerful women's groups and much of the general public weighed in on the pro-choice side. What Henry Morgentaler recently called the "usual suspects" put their own considerable resources behind the anti-choice lobby. The result, after all that, was that insufficient consensus existed to have any law at all.

The case for passing a law, it seems to me, should be that a broad public consensus exists that such a law is required. One doesn't pass a law simply for the sake of having a law. But in this case, no one formulation of an abortion law had anything but minority support. If it's democracy that Coyne wants to invoke, the conclusion here is obvious.

But not, it seems, to Coyne. He moves on to discuss why we apparently need to revisit the notion of criminalizing abortion. He acknowledges that public and political opinion has shifted since 1988 in the direction of choice, but dismisses this as based upon "convenient myth." He expresses outrage that the pro-choice forces are sufficiently in the ascendancy to cow even the Harper Conservatives, and that "pro-life" campus groups are being "banned," by which he appears to mean, if Carleton University is any indication, that some of them are being refused subsidies from students' associations. (The Carleton University Students' Association eventually provided that subsidy, after the "pro-life" club in question amended its charter to conform to the CUSA human rights policy.)

Again, this is all democracy in action, rough-and-tumble, not always very nice, but democratic nonetheless. Dissent isn't being squelched, as Coyne insists--it's simply being out-argued and out-lobbied.

Bringing up polls from a few years ago merely underlines this undeniable fact. Public opinion has shifted towards choice--and it continues to shift. Coyne notes, with barely concealed annoyance, that last month's Angus Reid poll showed that nearly half of Canadians--49%--believe that abortion should be legal under any circumstances, and another 47% under certain circumstances. That may fall short, as he insists, of a "national consensus in favour of unrestricted abortion," but it falls even shorter of a national consensus for a restrictive abortion law.

If only Canadians knew, Coyne says, that other countries had abortion laws, even liberal European nations. That would surely affect our public opinion polls. That would make us want legal restrictions on abortion. The legislative regimes of France, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and Italy would have a pronounced effect upon us, if only someone would tell us ignorant Canadians what they were. Quick! Toss that man another straw!

At this point, one can see Coyne's argument collapsing. We're alone, he says. Are all those other countries extreme? Are two-thirds of our own public extreme? (That "two-thirds" remark is journalistic legerdemain, and not a very skillful example of it, given that he has just finished conceding that nearly half of Canadians want no legal restrictions on abortion at all.)

All of these other countries have their own histories, and their abortion laws have their own etiologies. As cosmopolitan as Canadians are, I don't think too many people would be bothered to learn that our European cousins have different laws than we do.

But Coyne isn't finished. If we were to pass a law, he says, things wouldn't change that much anyway. If we had a 20-week gestational limit, for example, only one percent of current abortions would be affected. And the national abortion rate is falling. Perhaps, he says--after all this spilled ink--"there are other factors, other ways, than the criminal law" to deal with abortion. If only he had stopped there.

But, confronting the inexorable logic of his own argument, Coyne retreats. He concludes that a law is indeed wanted, and that pro-choicers should support one, because it would "restore the issue to the realm of democratic debate, without which no genuine consensus is possible." I don't think that Coyne is necessarily arguing here for putting the legal cart before the consensual horse, although his words could be read that way. I believe that he is suggesting that he wants a law to be introduced, debated, fashioned by compromise, and passed.

Otherwise, he says, there is no room for compromise or negotiation. In the US, Roe v. Wade made compromise impossible, he says, and abortion a "winner-take-all game of lawyers." It's much the same here in Canada, he states. But with respect to the latter, where are those lawyers? The legal issues (other than access in places like PEI) are settled. In the US, states keep enacting new, restrictive legislation. Some of it gets struck down and some of it has been allowed to stand by the US Supreme Court. It's more a winner-take-all game of politicians. And women suffer as a result.

Indeed, perhaps the most striking thing about Coyne's article is the near-absence of any reference to the rights of women, and the consequences they have historically endured when those rights are denied or restricted. And his next point--that a law would "open the way to assinging a fetus some rights in Canadian law"--leads him into dangerous waters indeed. He gives the example of a glue-sniffing pregnant woman, whom the authorities could not apprehend and prevent from continuing her practice.

The problem with limit-cases like this is the appeal to raw emotion. Certainly, one feels, something should be done to prevent damage to what eventually will become a citizen. His or her future quality of life will doubtless be adversely affected by the woman's addiction. But from a public policy standpoint, where would state intervention end? In various US jurisdictions, as documented in Susan Faludy's Backlash, women have been apprehended for being seen in a bar, for not eating sufficiently nutritious food, and for attempting to leave their place of residence (allegedly to obtain an abortion). I think it's up to the recriminalizers to tell us if and where a line can be drawn before we rush pell-mell into a legal fetal-rights regime.

"Would an abortion debate be so scary?" Coyne concludes with this rhetorical question. One wonders where he's been since 1998: the abortion debate continues, occasionally flaring up, rarely with new arguments presented, but grinding on, and on, and on. Indeed, the debate is what prompted Coyne to write his article in the first place. What he means, however, is a debate focussed upon the notion of a new abortion law. Maybe, he concedes, we'll collectively talk ourselves out of it. But we'll have decided the matter ourselves, rather than having it all happen by accident and a Senate vote.

As already noted, though, it wasn't blind circumstance that brought us to our current situation. The Supreme Court struck down a damaging, humiliating, restrictive criminal law. Parliament, after three stout goes, decided to let the matter rest, although they could have pursued it further. Nearly half of all Canadians today don't want any legal restrictions on abortion. This doesn't sound, to me, like a favourable climate for making abortion a criminal matter once again.

Coyne, not to put too fine a point upon it, is making social mischief with his suggestion. Women's rights, in 2008, cannot be subjected once again to Criminal Code restrictions. If Coyne thinks the country is divided on the abortion issue now--and it assuredly is--he hasn't seen anything like the division that would be created by introducing new abortion legislation. He wants us to have the discussion all over again, but he doesn't seem to realize that a national debate may be only tenuously connected to the political processes that would ultimately decide the question.

Most Canadians thought abortion should be a matter to be decided by a woman and her doctor years before Section 251 was struck down, but the politicians didn't make a move until the Supreme Court forced them to. And then they were unable to come to a conclusion. There is no guarantee that they would now, or, that if they did, their decision would accord with the wishes of the majority of Canadians. If ever there was a case of rolling the dice, it would be on this issue.

Besides which, since when should rights be put to a vote? In 2008, women deserve better than that. In fact we all deserve better than that. Coyne wants to open a Pandora's box and let its contents loose on the population. The social and public policy consequences could be catastrophic, but for him, at least ostensibly, the debate is everything.

Introduce new criminal abortion legislation for the sake of a national discussion? Let's not, Andrew--and say, we did. Three times, over the period 1988-1991, to be exact. Gamble yet again on a woman's right to choose?

No dice.

(Crossposted from Dawg's Blawg)

The world is officially nuts - Part 2

You'll recall, of course, the illumination of BC Ferries security pamphlet, which is a verbatim adoption of the US Homeland Security policy of spying on your neighbour and turning her/him in for engaging in typical tourist behaviour.

Before I go on, and believe me we're going to go beyond BC Ferries, let me point out that BC Ferries is not a "cross the river" operation. It is a provincially-owned corporation (no matter what Gordon Campbell may think) that operates some of the largest ships in the Canadian merchant fleet. With ships exceeding 21,000 tons and an annual passenger complement of over 21.6 million passengers, BC Ferries is a mammoth Canadian shipping company.

What you need to know, whether you hail from British Columbia or not, is that your Nickle is helping to pay the way for BC Ferries. The British Columbia ferry system is a part of the Trans-Canada Highway and it receives federal funding to maintain that link to Vancouver Island. And that security pamphlet they published? Yeah. They got federal money for that too. You may be from Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes or the Prairies, but you helped pay for that pamphlet.

I digress.

Things could be worse. In fact, they could be much worse. A different Canadian company has attracted the attention of the US Department of Homeland Security and not what most would consider to be in a good way.

This is from the Washington Times: (Yes, it's a Bush administration cheerleader. Which should tell you something.) Emphasis mine.

A senior government official with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has expressed great interest in a so-called safety bracelet that would serve as a stun device, similar to that of a police Taser®. According to this promotional video found at the Lamperd Less Lethal, Inc. website, the bracelet would be worn by all airline passengers (video also shown below).

This bracelet would:

• Take the place of an airline boarding pass

• Contain personal information about the traveler

• Be able to monitor the whereabouts of each passenger and his/her luggage

• Shock the wearer on command, completely immobilizing him/her for several minutes

The Electronic ID Bracelet, as it’s referred to, would be worn by every traveler “until they disembark the flight at their destination.” Yes, you read that correctly. Every airline passenger would be tracked by a government-funded GPS, containing personal, private and confidential information, and would shock the customer worse than an electronic dog collar if the passenger got out of line.

Clearly the Electronic ID Bracelet is a euphemism for the EMD Safety Bracelet, or at least it has a nefarious hidden ability (thus the term ID Bracelet is ambiguous at best). EMD stands for Electro-Musclar Disruption. Again, according to the promotional video, the bracelet can completely immobilize the wearer for several minutes.

What some clown from Sarnia Ontario is proposing, and some donkey in the US government thinks is really cool, is that you, an airline passenger, will agree to wear a bracelet that has the complete details of your travel and personal history, can geographically locate you anywhere and can do to you what a police-fired electroshock weapon does. In short, take you down, inject muscular disruption and, (even though it doesn't exist), give you a case of Excited Delirium. If you die, that's what you died from. If you live, it was for the good of all.

The terrorists lose and, so, by the way, do you.

If this gets past the few sane heads left in government, what somebody is proposing is that every airline passenger, having given up everything about their life including the lifespan of the vibrator batteries, is going to voluntarily wear the probes of a fucking electroshock weapon on their arms.

The Last Man in Europe (Orwell's 1984), didn't go that far. Even Star Trek didn't venture there beyond the fact that it might have happened on an alien world.

And if you think this is going, you know, nowhere, take a look at this.

These goofballs are serious! They really believe that your freedom is worth absolutely nothing. Security if everything.

This little reassurance means zip.

The bracelets remain inactive until a hijacking situation has been identified. At such time a designated crew member will activate the bracelets making them capable of delivering the punitive measure - but only to those that need to be restrained. We believe that all passengers will welcome deliverance from a hijacking, as will the families, carriers, insurance providers etc. The F-16 on the wing-tip is not to reassure the passengers during a hijacking, but rather to shoot them down. Besides activation using the grid screen, the steward / stewardess will have a laser activator that can activate any bracelet as needed by simply pointing the laser at the bracelet - that laser dot only needs to be within 10 inches of the bracelet to activate it.

I have a hot flash for you sweetheart. In about six minutes some 12-year old will break into the software you've developed and "drive stun" every passenger on an airplane halfway between Vancouver and New York. Won't that be a fucking laugh?!

You know what's scary? Brother Stockwell, dinosaur walker extraordinare, is unable to resist this kind of shit.

Let's face it. If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.... right?

Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.
Benjamin Franklin

Cross posted from The Galloping Beaver